On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 05:03:00PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 11:52:00AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 10:37:14PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 04:07:29PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 04:13:49PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > > During changes to kfree_rcu() code, we often check the amount of free
> > > > > memory. As an alternative to checking this manually, this commit adds a
> > > > > measurement in the test itself. It measures four times during the test
> > > > > for available memory, digitally filters these measurements to produce a
> > > > > running average with a weight of 0.5, and compares this digitally
> > > > > filtered value with the amount of available memory at the beginning of
> > > > > the test.
> > > > >
> > > > > We apply the digital filter only once we are more than 25% into the
> > > > > test. At the 25% mark, we just read available memory and don't apply any
> > > > > filtering. This prevents the first sample from skewing the results
> > > > > as we would not consider memory readings that were before memory was
> > > > > allocated.
> > > > >
> > > > > A sample run shows something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 6369738407 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 764, memory footprint: 216MB
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Much better! A few comments below.
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > v1->v2: Minor corrections
> > > > > v1->v3: Use long long to prevent 32-bit system's overflow
> > > > > Handle case where some threads start later than others.
> > > > > Start measuring only once 25% into the test. Slightly more accurate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: bristot@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Cc: frextrite@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Cc: madhuparnabhowmik04@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Cc: urezki@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > > > > index da94b89cd531..67e0f804ea97 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > > > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > > > > #include <linux/types.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/mm.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/kthread.h>
> > > > > #include <linux/err.h>
> > > > > @@ -604,6 +605,8 @@ struct kfree_obj {
> > > > > struct rcu_head rh;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > +long long mem_begin;
> > > > > +
> > > > > static int
> > > > > kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
> > > > > {
> > > > > @@ -611,6 +614,7 @@ kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
> > > > > long me = (long)arg;
> > > > > struct kfree_obj *alloc_ptr;
> > > > > u64 start_time, end_time;
> > > > > + long long mem_during = si_mem_available();
> > > >
> > > > You initialize here, which makes quite a bit of sense...
> > > >
> > > > > VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("kfree_perf_thread task started");
> > > > > set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids));
> > > > > @@ -626,6 +630,15 @@ kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > do {
> > > > > + // Moving average of memory availability measurements.
> > > > > + // Start measuring only from when we are at least 25% into the test.
> > > > > + if (loop && kfree_loops > 3 && (loop % (kfree_loops / 4) == 0)) {
> > > > > + if (loop == (kfree_loops / 4))
> > > > > + mem_during = si_mem_available();
> > > >
> > > > But then you reinitialize here. Perhaps to avoid the compiler being
> > > > confused into complaining about uninitialized variables? (But if so,
> > > > please comment it.)
> > >
> > > It is reinitialized here like that, because if kfree_loops is < 4, then
> > > mem_during needs to hold some value to avoid the (mem_begin - mem_during) to
> > > falsely appear quite large. That's why I initialized it in the beginning. If
> > > kfree_loops is >= 4, then yes it will be initialized twice but that's Ok.
> > >
> > > I can add a comment to the earlier initialization if you like.
> >
> > Could we just force kfree_loops >= 4? Complain if not, set it to 4?
>
> Sure.
>
> > > > The thing is that by the fourth measurement, the initial influence has
> > > > been diluted by a factor of something like 16 or 32, correct? I don't
> > > > believe that your measurements are any more accurate than that, given the
> > > > bursty nature of the RCU reclamation process. So why not just initialize
> > > > it and average it at each sample point?
> > >
> > > Yes but diluting 200MB of delta by 16 is still high and causes a skew.
> >
> > You get similar errors by only sampling four times, though. Assuming a
> > reasonably long test run compared to the typical grace-period duration,
> > each of the four samples has a 50% chance of being above the median,
> > thus a 1/16 chance of all four samples being above the median.
>
> [snip]
> > > We can certainly refine it further but at this time I am thinking of spending
> > > my time reviewing Lai's patches and learning some other RCU things I need to
> > > catch up on. If you hate this patch too much, we can also defer this patch
> > > review for a bit and I can carry it in my tree for now as it is only a patch
> > > to test code. But honestly, in its current form I am sort of happy with it.
> >
> > OK, I will keep it as is for now and let's look again later on. It is not
> > in the bucket for the upcoming merge window in any case, so we do have
> > quite a bit of time.
> >
> > It is not that I hate it, but rather that I want to be able to give
> > good answers to questions that might come up. And given that I have
> > occasionally given certain people a hard time about their statistics,
> > it is only reasonable to expect them to return the favor. I wouldn't
> > want you to be caught in the crossfire. ;-)
>
> Since the weights were concerning, I was thinking of just using a weight of
> (1 / N) where N is the number of samples. Essentially taking the average.
> That could be simple enough and does not cause your concerns with weight
> tuning. I tested it and looks good, I'll post it shortly.
YES!!! ;-)
Snapshot mem_begin before entering the loop. For the mean value to
be solid, you need at least 20-30 samples, which might mean upping the
default for kfree_loops. Have an "unsigned long long" to accumulate the
sum, which should avoid any possibility of overflow for current systems
and for all systems for kfree_loops less than PAGE_SIZE. At which point,
forget the "%" stuff and just sum up the si_mem_available() on each pass
through the loop.
Do the division on exit from the loop, preferably checking for divide
by zero.
Straightforward, fast, reasonably reliable, and easy to defend.
Thanx, Paul
